Legislative
History of Public Act No. 94-61

SUMMARY: Parents who are divorced,
legally sepa­rated, or have had their marriage annulled are required to support
their children, according to their ability to do so, until thc child turns 18
(the age of majority). This act requires such parents to continue, in some
cases, to support their children until they turn 19 or complete high school,
whichever occurs first. This obligation applies only as long as the child
remains unmarried, attends high school full time, needs the support, and lives
with one of the parents. And it applies only to parents whose dissolution,
annulment, or separation is entered by the court after June 30,1994.

Compiler’s Note

TESTIMONY. A public hearing was held
before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on March 11, 1994 at which attorney
Sally Oldham, representing the Connecticut Bar Association, and Shirley
Pripstein, a family attorney from the Legal Aid Society of Hartford, spoke in
favor of the bill’s passage.

In addition written testimony was offered by Anne
Brennan Carroll, legislative liaison for the Permanent Commission on the Status
of Women (p.102).

FISCAL/BILL
ANALYSIS.
No fiscal note or bill analysis was prepared for this bill (p. 103).

DEBATE ON
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. Bill passed the House of Representatives on April 24th
1994 after an Amendment offered by Rep. Tulisano was withdrawn.

DEBATE ON
FLOOR OF THE SENATE. The Senate passed the bill three days later.

GOVERNOR. Public Act no. 61 was
signed by the Governor on May 24 1994.

Statement of Purpose: To expand the jurisdiction of the
superior court to order child support for certain high school students and
support and educational expenses for certain post secondary education.

SALLY OLDHAM: Good
afternoon, Representative Tulisano and members of the Committee. My name is
Sally Oldham and I’m here today representing the Connecticut Bar Association
and to the post majority child support committee of which I’ve been chairman
for the last year and a half, which is a subcommittee of the family law section
of the bar association.

I’d like to thank you for giving
me the time and opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the HB5618.

The purpose of this bill, HB5618
is AN ACT CONCERNING POST MAJORITY CHILD SUPPORT. The purpose of the bill is to
expand the jurisdiction of the superior court so that in appropriate
circumstances it may impose an obligation on either parent to provide financial
support to their children after they reach their 18th birthday.

As our written testimony details,
children of divorced families received less support after age 18 than do
children of intact families. Forty-eight states provide for some form of post
majority support.

REP. TULISANO: Only in divorce cases?

SALLY OLDHAM: Only in divorce cases. Post majority support
can be provided in ways which are constitutional and that’s been tested in
other states and found to be no violation of the equal protection clause or the
due process clause. And our proposal is specifically and intentionally narrow
in scope.

Under current law, a parent of a
child who will not graduate from high school until he or she is 19, has no
legal obligation to support that child after his 18th birthday. Yet most
children of intact families receive support through high school graduation.

1312

Similarly, middle class and well
to do noncustodial parents who but for the divorce, would make the necessary
sacrifices to insure that their child receives further training or education
beyond high school, can and often do refuse to contribute any financial support
once the child turns 18.

As a result, custodial parents,
most often mothers, routinely support their children after the age of 18,
despite the pervasive judicial fiction that a child is emancipated and capable
of providing for him or herself on his or her 18th birthday.

Many other parents sacrifice
property awards at the time of the divorce to obtain a contractual commitment
from the primary wage earner that he or she will pay for college or further
educational training.

Although this commitment is then
enforceable by the courts in Connecticut, absent such a contract, the court is
powerless to obligate either parent to make a fair contribution to their
child’s support after age 18.

What we have proposed is
intentionally narrow in scope. It seeks to put the children of divorced
families on a more equal footing with children of intact families. The proposed
revisions address two separate situations.

In the first instance, they provide
that the parents of a child through age 19 or graduation from high school,
whichever comes first, shall provide maintenance and support for that child.

It’s increasingly common that
children do not graduate from high school until well after their 18th or even
19th birthday. In addition, an individual who lacks a high school diploma in
this country today, is both socially stigmatized and vocationally handicapped.
We believe every child should be entitled to support until this milestone is
achieved.

This provision, this part of the
proposed revision, amendment to the child support statute, would be mandatory.

1313

The second, which is
discretionary, would give the superior court jurisdiction to in certain
limited, but appropriate circumstances, order one or both parents to support a
child over the age of 18 as long as that child is financially dependent,
domiciled with a parent, and pursuing some sort of post secondary school
training or education.

The goal of this type of post
majority support is not to make wholesale awards of tuition, but to replicate
as closely as possible the decisions anintact
family would make.

I think it’s important to stress
that this provision is, would purely be discretionary on the part of the judge,
but right now even where both parents are making very substantial incomes, the
court has no jurisdiction to make any orders withrespect to support of that child after the 18th birthday.

The family law section of the
Connecticut Bar Association has met over the last year and a half and studied
and researched this problem and has given very careful consideration to the
specific language of the proposed amendment. We’ve reviewed the statutes of all
50 states and researched the applicable case law, much a summary of our findings
is provided in the written testimony that’s been given to each of you.

The proposed amendments
intentionally use general language so that the judge will have discretion to
make awards that are reasonable under all the circumstances. The Committee felt
that it was necessary to permit sufficient judicial discretion because there
are numerous scenarios which cannot be anticipated in a statute like this.

The increased discretion provided
to the court will not unduly increase the burdens already placed on the court
because they are already engaged in factfinding,
particularly on the issues of asset valuation, income, and ability to pay child
support. Instead, the proposed amendments merely broaden the authority of the
court by giving it the discretion it needs to fashion fair and equitable
orders.

1314

In determining the scope of who
may be eligible for post majority support while pursuing an education or
training, the Committee chose to follow language in the Massachusetts statute
which was enacted several years ago and has been used without difficulty in
Massachusetts. That requires that the adult child be principally dependent on a
parent due to enrollment in an educational program.

The statute is intended to address
only dependent children. It’s not intended to provide support orders where a
child is married or emancipated, or where the child has abandoned the family.
The Committee opted to omit any requirement that a child be a full-time
student, believing that the language principally dependent on a parent due to
enrollment in an educational program will cover full-time students and other
circumstances where awards of support may be appropriate. Again, that would be
on a case by case basis by the judge.

Likewise, we refrain from including
any language about the relationship between the child and his or her parent due
to concern that such definition would create more problems than it would solve
on the issues of emancipation or estrangement.

REP. TULISANO: Could you repeat that please?

SALLY OLDHAM: We refrain from including any language about
the nature of the relationship between the parent and the child. The child
can’t be estranged, or must be in good standing or the parent has to have a
reasonable relationship with the child. Other states have played with language
like that and have just had all kinds of litigation about it.

REP. TULISANO: But they haven’t repealed it?

SALLY OLDHAM: No.

REP. TULISANO: There were 40 states that have that kind of
language. How many states are like Massachusetts?

1315

SALLY OLDHAM:
There are 5 other states like Massachusetts that have a specific statute
and there are a number of other, I’m not exactly certain of the number. New
York is included, which permit post majority support for education by case law.

REP. TULISANO:
Wait a minute. (inaudible) some 40 odd states have post--

SALLY OLDHAM: Have some form of post majority support.

REP. TULISANO: Are most of them through high school?

SALLY OLDHAM: The vast majority of those are through high
school, or age 19.

REP. TULISANO: The
vast majority of the 40 some odd states are finishing school at high school
level and are not post majority support until say, 23 years old which I think
the Massachusetts law is, is that
correct?

REP. TULISANO: And isn’t it true that only 3 states allow
support while the child decides to pursue higher education.

SALLY OLDHAM: I’m
sorry, I didn’t hear you.

REP. TULISANO:
Three states.

SALLY OLDHAM:
Three states?

REP. TULISANO:
Yeah, pursuing higher education is a statutory rule?

SALLY OLDHAM: No, I believe that there are 5 states. They
are Illinois, Colorado, no, I’m sorry. Illinois, Colorado, Oregon, Iowa,
Massachusetts. Those are all by statute. And in New York it’s by case law. And
states like Washington have just changed the minority, the child support
statute to say, instead of a minor child, a dependent child and case law is
developing.

1316

REP. TULISANO:
Well, who determines the dependence, the child or the parent?

SALLY OLDHAM: What
we --

REP. TULISANO: What makes a child dependent? He’s decided
not to go to work and go to school?

SALLY OLDHAM: Well,
what we’ve proposed here is that in the first place, only a parent can bring an
action for this type of support. So the child has no right to go into court and
ask for this kind of support.

And the second thing that we’ve
done hereis, we’velimited the circumstances in which a
parent would be required to pay support for a child after the age of 18, to
circumstances where that child is pursuing some sort of either their high
school education or some sort of post secondary education.

REP. TULISANO: Let
me tell you my problem. When I went to college, my father says, you’ve got to
go to work, I can’t afford it. Under your rule, if he divorced my mother, my
mother could then sue him to get me the education. But we stayed together as a
happy family giving me, the first person who testified here, a good fatherly
loving care and concern, but he couldn’t afford to send me to college, too bad.
Right?

We’d like to treat the children of
divorced parents better than the children of families that are united?

SALLY OLDHAM: What
we are proposing is to remedy a situation where the children of divorce are not
getting what most children in most intact families are getting. That’s not to
say there aren’t exceptions on both sides.

REP. TULISANO:
They will be entitled to get it then. We’re giving them a methodology by
which they may receive court ordered sanctions to obtain support, or post, that
other kids may not be entitled to get.

1317

SALLY OLDHAM: What
we’ve proposed is that the court would have the jurisdiction if it found that
the parents had the resources.

REP. TULISANO: I
understand that. I’m worried about parents who have the resources who are
united and won’t take care of their kids. Why are we setting up a distinction
between kids?

SALLY OLDHAM:
There already exists a distinction to some degree between the children
in intact families and the children in divorced families.

REP. TULISANO:
What’s that. Post 18.

SALLY OLDHAM: Well,
if you take children at any age in a divorced family, for example, in a married
family, the parents may decide they can’t afford health insurance and the court
has no authority to order them to maintain health insurance for those children.
The children are not entitled to health insurance. –

If the parents go into the divorce
–

REP. TULISANO: But the statute says they have to provide
medical care, right, though? Not health insurance, but medical care.

SALLY OLDHAM:
That’s right, but if they go into the divorce court, then that same
family that has no, that has made the decision not to have health insurance may
be ordered by the court to provide medical insurance that would cover those
children.

And what the statistics are
showing now with children of divorce is that a very large percentage of them
are not going on to college, are dropping out of high school, have lower
expectations of themselves and for their futures than their peers who are from
intact families. And in fact, they
get less (inaudible)

REP. TULISANO: You
still haven’t answered my question. How about the kids from an intact family
whose parents say, I’m not going to pay it.

SALLY OLDHAM:
You’re absolutely eight. That’s a very good point. There are some
parents --

1318

REP. TULISANO: So
why not raise the whole age of majority to 21?

SALLY OLDHAM:
Well, then what you’d have is a situation, I believe, where –

REP. TULISANO: Then you won’t have any prob1ems about
going to jail at 18 and all these other issues they keep raising. Everybody’s
21. They’re either a kid or an adult.

SALLY OLDHAM: Well
--

REP. TULISANO: It
makes sense not to drink until 21 then.

SALLY OLDHAM: The
difference between just raising the age to 21 and what the amended HB5618 is, that
under HB5618 as we’ve amended it, or proposed the amendment, you would not
have, there would be no ability for the court to order a parent to support a
child who is 18, graduated from high school and just goofing off, hanging out
around the house and saying, I’m dependent, you have to support me.

With the proposal that we’ve put
together, the court wouldn’t be able to order support under those
circumstances. If you raised the age of majority to 21, you would be able to.
The court would have authority to do that if they felt that it was appropriate
under the circumstances.

SALLY OLDHAM: I
think you’re raising a very interesting point that’s been addressed in other
states with the equal protection argument. And basically, as I understand what
you’re raising is a question of whether we’ve created two separate classes of
people and whether it’s fair to treat them separately.

REP. TULISANO:
I’ve got another question. If we did this, how would it affect the
guidelines?

1319

SALLY OLDHAM: The
guidelines, in the proposal it’s stated that the guidelines would not apply to
the provisions for the support after –

REP. TULISANO: My assumption is that especially,
Connecticut, where the guidelines do not match the 40 something other states
either. They have built in there the presumption that the custodial parent may
be saving part of that money for future educational purposes. We’re going to
reduce the guidelines while they’re young.

SALLY OLDHAM: No,
the guidelines would apply as they exist through the age 19 or graduation from
high school support and then after that the guidelines would not apply to the
consideration of whether the parents could pay the support past 18.

REP. TULISANO: I guess I say, the guidelines supposedly
say that it includes adequate income for saving money for college. That’s what
they do now. They try to make like you’re an intact family. Now that includes
money saving for college like the intact family does.

Now if you’re going to say later
on you’re going to have to pay support then I guess we’ve got to reduce the
guidelines. We wouldn’t want that, I understand where you’re coming from.

SALLY OLDHAM: I understand
whereyou’re coming from.

REP. TULISANO:
Logic is beyond us in this business, I know.

SALLY OLDHAM: I
think the problem is that there are people who may be saving that money for
support, for the college education at some later point.

REP. TULISANO: But
isn’t that what the people with the same income are doing when they’re married?

SALLY OLDHAM: It
may be.

REP. TULISANO: Or
they’re not sending them to college. They haven’t done it, they couldn’t do it.
I don’t presume that people can afford to do that. Don’t misunderstand me,
intact or not intact.

1320

SALLY OLDHAM:
Absolutely. But that wouldn’t change with this proposal because the
court would still have to make that determination if the court felt that the
family had no ability to pay for it then there wouldn’t be no orders. It
wouldn’t be appropriate, it wouldn’t be an appropriate circumstance.

REP. TULISANO:
Representative Radcliffe.

REP. RADCLIFFE: I
think I have basically the same line of question. You said earlier that a child
wouldn’t have, or an 18 year old or a 19 year old wouldn’t be able to go into
court and seek this type of money. The money would have to be sought on behalf
of the 18 or 19 year old student by the parent, is that right?

SALLY OLDHAM:
That’s correct. The parent, if you’ll look to paragraph f of the
proposed revision, it says the application for post majority support and
education expenses may be made only by a parent and may be made before or after
a child has attained the age of majority.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Alright. Then let’s say that one parent is a noncustodial parent, we’ll
call it a he for the sake of argument, is a noncustodial parent. The custodial
parent, she, doesn’t want to provide for the college education of an offspring,
for whatever reason. Would he, the noncustodial parenthave standing to raise that issue?

SALLY OLDHAM: Yes.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Okay. But the child himself or herself wouldn’t be able to do that. It
would have to be done through a parent.

SALLY OLDHAM: Yes.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Presently, and we have testimony here all of the time on this subject.
Presently, there’s no provision to account for the use of child support. I take
it this would be paid in the nature of child support. It would not be
deductible by the party paying it. It
would be

1321

includable, might be includable
for income purposes. I don’t think it would be by the party receiving it.

Are we going to have a provision
where this money, if it’s for post secondary education, is going to be accounted
for?

SALLY OLDHAM:
That’s an interesting concept that the Committee had not looked at. The
way it’s--

REP. RADCLIFFE: Is it unrealistic?

SALLY OLDHAM: No,
I think it’s a very good point.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Oh, okay.

SALLY OLDHAM: They
say it’s worked in Massachusetts, I know is that the orders have been in some
cases, for support that’s, continuation of the child support, $100 a week or
whatever it was to the custodial parent and possibly payment directly to a
college or a vocational school on behalf of the child.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Under our existing laws, if it were child support and were paid to the
custodial parent for a minute, we’ll call the custodial parent he. And she paid
this money so that their offspring would receive an education and he decided to
useit and go to Europe. That
wouldn’t be illegal, would it?

SALLY OLDHAM:
There’s nothing in our proposed--There’s nothing in our proposed
amendment that would address that. I don’t think people would have any difficulty
with any kind of revision that would incorporate that. I think in terms of the
taxability, it would still be child support, which would not be taxable to the
recipient.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Right.

SALLY OLDHAM: Does
that answer your question?d

REP. RADCLIFFE: It
does. How about some year if this Legislature, or other Legislature passed a
law for deduction of tuition. Would it be deductible as payment of tuition?

1322

SALLY OLDHAM:
Those are questions of federal tax law. It would depend on how the
federal tax code, you know, wanted to --

(Gap in cassette switching 3a to 3b)

REP. RADCLIFFE: --
the money going for the purpose intended. It’s sort of curious in these
bills, I don’t know how you’d write it otherwise, but in looking at this, the,
I’ll say the child, the youngadult, the 18 year old adult who
has attained the age of majority and is seeking post secondary education has no
standing to raise this issue on his or her own. To go into court, to file an
appearance, to have counsel, argue that perhaps under these circumstances that
since both mommy and daddy can well afford to send me to college, that they
ought to have to do that, and neither one of them wants to. Under those
circumstances, thatparticular
offspring would have no standing to raise that issue and the court couldn’t
order post majority child support. Is that right?

SALLY OLDHAM:
That’s correct.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
All right, but where one of the two parents says, gee, you know, I think
this would be a good idea, then it would be okay. What’s the basis for the
-- is there a rational basis for that
distinction?

SALLY OLDHAM: The
thinking of the committee that looked into this was that we’re trying to avoid
making a child a party to what is essentially a dissolution of marriage action
or a paternity support action. That would be a major substantive change in the
way the law is currently handled and we did not want to step into that.

There are obviously some
disadvantages to it both ways, but we felt that on balance, the better course
was to not make a child a party to the parents’ action and to leave it up to
the parents and the judge and the judge would have discretion to fashion the
orders in such a way, possibly incorporating accountability, incorporating
direct payments so that it doesn’t go into hands of the child.

1323

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Under our existing law, could a judge order that money be paid directly
to aninstitution of higher learning
and not to the custodial parent?

SALLY OLDHAM: I don’t
think so. Not for the benefit of any child over the age of 18.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Well, how about if, for example, the age of majority were raised to 21?
Would a judge’s part of an order have the authority to order under those
circumstances payments be made directly to an institution if those payments
were for child support?

SALLY OLDHAM:
Judges do make orders, for example, that payments be made directly to
prep schools on behalf of a child in certain cases. I assume that that could
continue.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
All right. You’ve got two provisions of this bill, really. The first
paragraph, dealing with someone through high school who may have his or her
18th birthday in March and you want to make certain that there’s a right to
receive -- continue to receive food and
clothing and shelter through at least graduation from high school.

SALLY OLDHAM: Yes.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
That, you know, that seems to have some sort of reasonable basis.

SALLY OLDHAM: I think, if I may, one of the other things
that’s happened is that children are being held out of kindergarten for a year
more often at the early end, which has the result that they sometimes turn 18
in their junior year of high school.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
All right.

SALLY OLDHAM: So
there are more and more children in that category who are 18, but have not
graduated from high school.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
And you have a 19 year old, 19 is the age for the cutoff in this
situation too.

1324

SALLY OLDHAM: Nineteen or graduation from high school, whichever
should come first.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
All right. But the second section with post secondary education, there’s
no -- right at this particular point to order that support. How are attorneys
who deal in the domestic relations area, and I admit I don’t have a great deal
of experience there, how are they dealing with that now? Are they dealing with
it through lump sum allocation or child support? Are they dealing with it
through lump sum --? How are they dealing with that now in terms of agreements?

SALLY OLDHAM: I
think the reason we appointed a committee to do this, to study this was because
it’s being handled in a number of different ways and it’s an area of great
frustration to the family law practitioners and many times it’s negotiated and
if the parties agree and have a separation agreement, then it can become an
order of the court.

If it’s -- you know, that’s just a contractual
agreement that the court then can enforce. If they don’t agree, it often
becomes a major bargaining chip and sometimes people will trade the non-wage
earning spouse will trade some sort of, you know, security for him or herself
to get an agreement if they can.

REP. TULISANO: Why
should we be taking their chip away? What you’re really asking is (inaudible)
sides on the fight between the two parents, aren’t you?

SALLY OLDHAM: I’m
not sure I see it the same way. I think it’s an effort to level the playing
field a bit for the parties.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Now the other thing I see here in Section B, maybe it wasn’t intentional.
It talks about an undergraduate educational or vocational training program. Now
for a lot of my constituents in Trumbull, that would have great appeal because
most would be looking to an undergraduate institutional or a vocational
training program, but how about the 19 year old who says I’d like to be set up
in business. I’d like to go into business.

1325

I’d like to open up a grocery
store. I’d like to work in a gas station and get a dealers and repairers
license.

That’s not in here. Is there
something intrinsically more worthy of an -- foran individual to go to anundergraduate
educational vocational-technical school, that an individual to go into
business?

SALLY OLDHAM: I
don’t think anyone could argue that there’s nothing intrinsically one way or
the other more valuable about that. I think the --.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
But doesn’t this have a certain snob appeal? It’s okay to use it for
education, but not to go to work?

SALLY OLDHAM: I think
the question is, is the child financially dependent and there’s a question
between -- there’s a distinction between physical maturation and financial
independence and a child at 18, you know, may not be financially independent,
but a child at 18 who is ready to go into business may be able to support him
or herself.

REP.RADCLIFFE: Don’t send me to Yale. Set me up in a
business because I’m going to do dog grooming. Now the way this bill is
written, the parent could havean
obligation to send the offspring to Yale, but not to set him up in a business
to do dog grooming. Doesn’t that have a certain snob appeal. You’re saying the
education at Yale, we’re making a value judgment, is worthy of special
consideration in this bill, but the person who wants to set up a shop and do
dog grooming, that isn’t entitled to the same special consideration. Why?

SALLY OLDHAM: I
see what you’re trying to say. I think that what we were trying to say is that
children from divorced families are not getting a fair shake when it comes to
support after age 18. They’re not getting the same level of support that
children in intact families are.

1326

REP. RADCLIFFE:
They’re both the subject of the divorced family, both the person who
wants to go to Yale and the person who wants to open up a dog grooming
establishment down the street. They both have that same disadvantage. You’re
going to take care of one and not the other. Why?

SALLY OLDHAM: I
think the people who would put someone, start someone in business, it’sa whole different category. Parents
don’t generally do that.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Why because upper middle class people don’t go into business, they go to
college?

SALLY OLDHAM: No,
but I think that it’s not something that is part of their educational training.
It’spart of what we, as a society,
say is a necessary step in getting on with your educational training, to be set
up in business at age 19, whereas, to get a college degree, to get a vocational
degree, to get some sort of specific on—the—job training at the beauty school
for a year, which will put you into a position where you can start earning
money, that is something that we, as a society say, we usually do for our
children.

REP. RADCLIFFE: We
are saying that we put a greater value on a post—secondary education than we do
on an individual who may want to open up a landscaping business and cut lawns.

SALLY OLDHAM: I
think we’re just saying that to put someone up in business is not a question of
child support. You know, that’s a businessdecision or an investment decision that a family might make.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
All right, and he can go out and get a loan and do that, too, right?
Without necessarily the parents. Right?

SALLY OLDHAM:
Sure.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Well, why can’t the child who wants to go to college do the same thing?

SALLY OLDHAM:
Well, one of the problems --.

1327

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Once again, they’re similarly situated.

SALLY OLDHAM:
Well, one of the problems for children of divorced parents is in terms of
getting loans is that the financial aid offices want information and get
information from both parents and may disqualify a child for financial aid on
the basis of a parent’s income even though that parent is unwilling to support
or contribute to the education or training and the court has no authority to
order that parent to pay.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
Incidentally, I think the members of this committee also see this
problem that you’re bringing up, but any statute in this area ought to be very
carefully drafted so that a lot of these abuses, which I think we see can
occur, particularly a custodial parent obtaining money and then not forwarding
it to the required institution or calling it child support in that area, this
could be a serious problem for any attempt.

Now do you know how that’s been
dealt with in other states? How, for example, does the Family Court in
Massachusetts, if in fact they have a separate Family Court and I don’t know.

SALLY OLDHAM: It’s
through the Probate Court in Massachusetts, but --.

REP. RADCLIFFE:
How does the Probate Court handle that type of administrative problem?

SALLY OLDHAM: That
I don’t know. I just --.

REP. TULISANO: Do you know where welfare cuts off in
Connecticut?

SALLY OLDHAM: Age 19.

REP. TULISANO: 19?

SALLY OLDHAM: Or
as long as they’re still in school.

REP. TULISANO:
High school or post-graduate?

SALLY OLDHAM: High
school.

1328

REP. TULISANO: Now we’re going to have that problem, right?
So the is dragged into going to school and he comes from a poor family, he
doesn’t get the help of the state even.

SALLY OLDHAM: We have talked to the -- we specifically did not address children
with disabilities and we have specifically added -- have language --.

REP. TULISANO: I’m
talking about poverty. I mean I have this instinct, just like Mr. Radcliffe
does. This is a upper white middle class bill, again, and real people ain’t
getting the good shake and we don’t really care. That’s my gut reaction to
that. Now tell me something, how does it deal with participation of the parents
in school choice, maintenance of good grades? I mean if I were -- I’m going to
tell my kid, listen, you’re doing pretty good, you’re not screwing around. I’m
paying. You aren’t. You’re on your own.

SALLY OLDHAM: The
way other courts and other states have dealt with that is just on a case-by-case
basis and if the child is screwing around or not doing his --.

REP. TULISANO:
They can go to court and fight about it.

SALLY OLDHAM: They can go to court and fight about it.

REP. TULISANO: We’re really not treating the children of
divorced parents the same as we treat --
parents have much more say --.

SALLY OLDHAM: In
an intact family?

REP.TULISANO: Sure.

SALLY OLDHAM: I think that’s correct. I think what happens
when they get divorced is --.

1329

REP.TULISANO: Now we’re equalizing it and going a little
beyond it. Right?

SALLY OLDHAM: No,
I think what happens is that when parents get divorced, the local parentis
transfers to the court. The parents lose certain ability to make decisions on
their own. The court steps in and is interfering and has an interest and if
that cuts off at 18, then we can’t replicate what --.

REP. TULISANO: (inaudible) the dollars, I think. Not as to
discipline, not as to leverage.

SALLY OLDHAM:
We’re only talking about dollars here with child support is what we’re
trying to do.

REP. TULISANO:
We’re talking about getting an education, how I leverage themto do it right. I’ll pay for this. I’ll
give you this if you do that. That’s the real world. How do you do that in this
situation?

SALLY OLDHAM: The
--.

REP. TULISANO:
Maybe I’m not real world as a parent. I understand that.

SALLY OLDHAM: No,
I wouldn’t suggest that.

REP. TULISANO: He
usually does. He keeps telling me it’s 1990.

SALLY OLDHAM: I
think that it has to be done on a case-by-case basis and I think it is being
done when the children are under age 18, should the child go to this school or
that school. If the parents disagree, the court steps in. The court is involved
in those decisions.

REP. TULISANO: Okay,
thank you.

SALLY OLDHAM:
Thank you.

REP. TULISANO:
You’ve done great. We’ll admit you to this bar. David Kahl.

Testimony of
Shirley Pripstein

1391

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Good evening, Representative Lawlor. My name is Shirley Pripstein, I am
the Family Law Attorney from the Legal Aid Society of Hartford. I have been a
family law attorney for 14 years. I sit as the Special Master in Hartford and
have since the inception of the program in 1986 and I am on the Executive
Committee of the Family Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association and I am
speaking to you on several bills.

First, HB5618, the bill on
majority support, Legal Aid Society supports that bill. I did sit on the
executive committee which passed it and did vote in favor of it. It does, at
least in section 1, I know that it has been referred to as a wealthy person’s
bill, but certainly in Section 1 in terms of post—support through age 19 for
high school students, I don’t think it is a wealthy person’s bill at all, I
think it is a poor person’s bill and I would urge the Committee to enact at
least that portion of the bill even though I know there are significant
opposition to the second part. I would urge at least passage of that first
part.

* * * *

1397

[testimony on other bills]

REP. WOLLENBERG: I
hear you. Because you do a lot of this work, let me ask you, did you testify on
the bill about payment for support after l8?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
We support it.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
You would support it?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
We support it. I was here previously and I heard some of the criticism,
I think, by Representative Radcliffe, that it was the

1398

wealthy person’s bill. Legal Aid
Society doesn’t think of it as a wealthy person’s bill. I think there are a lot
of situations . . . .

REP. WOLLENBERG: I
wouldn’t say that, but I would ask you, if I stay married I don’t have to do
those things for my child. But if I get divorced I have to do them and that
doesn’t make any sense to me.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
In either case do you have to? In the case.. .in neither case do you
have to if you stay married the likelihood is that you will.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Why do you say that?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I think in most cases, an intact family, I think the parents will want
to do for their children.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
There are a lot of families that aren’t divorced that aren’t necessarily
on all fours with paying for Johnny to go to college.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I know but the majority of cases they do.

REP. WOLLENBERG: I
am talking about...maybe it becomes a rich man’s bill because if there is
plenty of dough we send him to college and we even pay after he is 18 if we are
divorced, there is a support matter we pay.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Unfortunately, the reason for the bill is what happens is in so many of
the cases we see that if the divorce occurs when the children are at a younger
age in many cases usually the father, but not necessarily, but usually, will not
pay for the college education and the court can’t order him to do that and what
you end up with is abargaining chip
situation where the wife wants to secure the college education and winds up
bargaining away what she would get otherwise in terms of current child support
and alimony or anorder related to . . . .

REP. WOLLENBERG: .
. . Sure, that’s what the whole thing is, a give and take. You know, two years
later you find . . . .

1399

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
If the court had the authority to order post-support for college
education there wouldn’t be, it would be ordered in those caseswhere the financial circumstances were
there. The common order that the divorce attorneys get in the wealthy cases,
and I know this not because I do those cases, but because I sit as a special
Master, so I know how those cases come in. The parents will pay for the college
education in proportion to their income. That’s the common order that goes in
the agreements and I would expect...

REP. WOLLENBERG:
But that’s the magic word, agreement.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
But the court should have the authority to make the order that the
parents would pay in proportion to the income, it would be an equal burden on
each parent.

REP.WOLLENBERG: But if I stay married no court, no
one can tell me that I have to pay for that kid’s college education.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEN:That’s
correct.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
So, I’ll work it out, I’ll live in California for a few months, I’ll
play around for three years until he gets out and this is an invasion, to me,
of rights. If we want to make it 21 then he has to pay, I have no problem with
that.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEN: Representative Wollenberg, the bill has
two parts, one has to do with the college education, the other has to do with
support to age19 as long as the child is in high school.

REP. WOLLENBERG: They do that anyway, you know that for
years.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEN:
Well, we don’t in family court.

REP. WOLLENBERG: I haven’t been to family court in six or seven
years, but when we did I always had the judge, the judge would always order,
whether he had the right or not that the payments should continue until the
child finished high school.

l400

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Unfortunately it is not happening now because the court doesn’t have the
authority...past the age of 18, so it’s not happening.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
That’s an easy one to negotiate.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
It’s not so easy when the court doesn’t . . . .

REP. WOLLENBERG:
None of them are really easy to negotiate, so let’s not...but that’s an
easier one than some of the others.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Easier one than some of the others to negotiate but then again you get
to the point where you have in difficult cases where the attorney says I am not
going to agree to that, what incentive do I have to agree to that because if I
don’t agree to it the court can order it. There is no incentive.

REP. WOLLENBERG: What if the kid isn’t college material
and at 18 he decides I am going to hang around some college I can get into just
to hang around. I don’t understand.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Again, it is the authority of the court. If you have a bum kid the court
is not going to order.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
What do you mean, how do they know when he is 13?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: You don’t, But this statute doesn’t say
necessarily that if the court doesn’t order it you can’t come back whenthe child is 18 years old.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Oh, now we have to go back to court and I said we do anyway, sure we do.

SHIPLEY PRIPSTEIN: We can’t get post education disso1ution
order, unless it is in an agreement.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
You can’t do what?

SHIPLEY PRIPSTEIN: You cannot order support beyond the age
of 18 for college education.

1401

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Can you order can he have a car?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
No.

REP. WOLLENBERG; Can you order that you support his
wife for something if he is 19 and he marries, can you order that you support
...

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Not under this statute.

REP. WOLLENBERG: Not under any statute, because it’snot right. If the kid is 18 he ought
to do what he wants, he has the right to do everything he wants.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Representative Wollenberg, I understand the emotionality of it and it
was an emotional issue in the Executive Committee of the Family Law also and I
know people said that it should be a very well thought out bill. This bill has
been through sub—committees in the Family Law section for two years.

REP. WOLLENBERG: For ten years?

REP. TULISANO: Out
before the whole Committee.

REP. WOLLENBERG: Ten years.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Two years. This is the first yearit has come up as a bill sponsored
by the Family Law Section.

REP. WOLLENBERG: Well,
why is that? It takes you all this time to get on board?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
It took the Family Law Section of the Bar all that time to draft a bill
which …

REP. WOLLENBERG: What has changed in ten years?

SHIPLEY PRIPSTEIN: What has changed? I don’t think
anything has really changed.

REP. WOLLENBERG: This bill has been a bill something like
this so you could have picked this up eight years ago and did something.

1402

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I think the drafters of the bi1l took into consideration, the
subcommittee took into consideration a lot of the objections to try to make it
very, very narrow and the majority of the Committee thought it was now or
nothing.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
The old story if we keep it around long enough we will sooner or later
get enough people to vote for it.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I don’t think that’s true. I think that they got it narrow enough.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Why didn’t they narrow it, that’s ten years to narrow it. Are you saying
it as because...

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Different people on the Committee.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Absolutely.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Different people on the Committee.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
When you can say somebody who is 18 now you are going to tie up somebody
else to make them pay something for that kid just for an education, why? Why do
we pick that?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I don’t understand?

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Why should we pick education. Why shouldn’t we say we have to buy him a
car? Every other kid in the neighborhood has a car by 18.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Well, I think most people value a college education more than a car.

REP. WOLLENBERG: I
don’t know that. I don’t think the kid at 18 does, in a lot of cases.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I think as family’s attorneys in terms of thinking what’s good for the
citizenry of this state we think that it would be good.

REP. WOLLENBERG: A car to travel back and forth to work
for somebody who has not interest in college would be a hell of a lot better
than a college education.

1403

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Perhaps. But the Family Section of the Bar didn’t necessarily see it
that way.

REP. WOLLENBERG: I
think they ought to spend more time on other things than this. I think this is
a real weird one to be backing at this time. After ten years we have talked
about it, all of a sudden you have worked the language out.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I would like to say something else, Representative Wollenberg. The way
the Bar Association works that the, we had our last full Section meeting
Tuesday night. These bills get to us after the meeting. There is not a way that
wecan have a full executive meeting
and take a position on the bills. So all the other years in which (Inaudible)
majority support bills have been before this Committee the Family Law Section
could not take a position because we can’t react...

REP. WOLLENBERG:Ten years ago what was wrong with the
Family Law Section in bringing the bill to us?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
We didn’t have one passed …

REP. WOLLENBERG: Seven years, six years, five years...

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: You don’t get input from the Family LawSection of the Bar for Family Law
bills because we can’t react fast enough and the CBA laws don’t permit us to
take a position on legislation unless it goes through the entire CBA. So we
can’t react …

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Wait a minute weget 1ost at
the rive from the Bar Association.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Those that derive from the BarAssociation as this one did you can
get, but the Family Law Section of the Bar can’t be here and take a position on
other bills because we can’t react that fast.

REP. WOLLENBERG: I don’t know seven or eight years ought
to be really time to react.

1404

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
We can brinq something to you, as abill that wesupport, but the
Family Law Sectioncan’t react fast
enough to take a position that you have.

REP. WOLLENBERG:
Well, it seems to me that this hasbeen kicking around for a long time. If we are going to do it, let them
wait until they are 18 for everything, 21 for everything and then they are
taken care of. Not piecemeal it like this, it doesn’t make sense at all.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Any questions from any other members? You always have meetings I have
theater tickets.

REP. TULISANO:
Okay, what time does the show begin. Sit down, sit down, I have
questions. You asked. What time does the show begin.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
Eight, in New Haven.

REP. TULISANO: If
I give up (inaudible) worth of questions. Alright. You rest your case? Without inquiry.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN:
I am not going to convince you.

REP. TULISANO: Right. Enjoy the show. Who’s next? Gloria
Varrone Breny to be followed by Robert Boone. Robert Boone.

1420

Written
Testimony

submitted by

Permanent Commission on the
Status of Women

before

Judicial Committee

March 18, 1994 Room 2B 12:30 P.M.

ANNE BRENNAN CARROLL,
LEGISLATIVE LIASON

TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RAISED
COMMITTEE BILL 5616

AN ACT CONCERNING POST MAJORITY
CHILD SUPPORT

We are supportive of Raised Committee Bill 5618, An Act
Concerning Post Majority Child Support. This bill does not change the legal status
of children at age 18, and does not treat children of divorce differently than
others. It requires both parents to continue to support any children until they
complete 12th grade or turn 19. It also allows judges, at their
discretion, to issue support orders for children between age of 18 and 221 who
are still in school.

Thirty-four states currently permit post-18 child support in
divorce and separation matters. Their reasons for this are clear. Many children
are still in high school after they turn 18. The student’s situation has not
changed, but support payments can stop. Medical problems do not disappear at
18, but insurance provided by non-custodial parent may. Post majority support
recognizes these realities. Bill 5618 does not require a parent to pay for a
college education or for other support, but it does give the court the power to
enter such an order where it is appropriate.

Please continue Connecticut’s reputation for enlightened
treatment of family matters, and support Raised Bill 5618.

File 399

File No. 399

Substitute House Bill
No. 5618

House of
Representatives, April 13, 1994. The
Committee on Judiciary reported through
REP.

TULISANO, 29th DIST., Chairman of the Committee on the part of the
House, that the substitute bill

ought to pass.

AN ACT CONCERNING
POST MAJORITY CHILD SUPPORT.

Be it
enacted by the
Senate and House of
Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1.
Section 46b-84 of
the general statutes is
repealed and the
following is substituted in
lieu thereof:

(a) Upon
or subsequent to the annulment or dissolution of any
marriage or the entry of a
decree of legal separation or divorce, the parents of a minor child of the
marriage, shall maintain the child according to their
respective abilities, if the child is in need of maintenance.

(b) IF
THERE IS AN
UNMARRIED CHILD OF THE MARRIAGE WHO HAS ATTAINED THE AGE OF
EIGHTEEN, IS A FULL TIME HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENT AND RESIDES WITH A PARENT,
THE PARENTS SHALL
MAINTAIN THE CHILD ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
ABILITIES IF THE CHILD IS IN NEED OF MAINTENANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
SUCH CHILD COMPLETES THE TWELFTH GRADE
OR ATTAINS THE AGE OF NINETEEN, WHICHEVER FIRST OCCURS. THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, LEGAL SEPARATION
OR ANNULMENT IS ENTERED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS ACT.

[(b)] (c)
In determining whether a child
is in need of maintenance and, if
in need, the respective abilities of the
parents to provide such maintenance and the amount thereof, the court
shall consider the
age, health, station, occupation, earning capacity,
amount and sources of income, estate,
vocational skills and employability of each of the parents,
and the age, health, station,
occupation, educational status
and expectation, amount and sources
of income, vocational skills,
employability, estate and needs of the child.

[(c)] (d)
At any time at which orders are
entered in a proceeding for
dissolution of marriage,
annulment, legal separation, custody, or support, whether before, at the time
of, or after entry of a decree or
judgment, if health insurance coverage for a minor child is ordered by the
court to be maintained, the court shall provide in the order that (1) the
signature of the
custodial parent or custodian of the insured dependent shall constitute
a valid authorization to the
insurer for purposes of
processing an insurance reimbursement payment
to the provider of the medical
services, to the custodial parent or to the custodian, (2)
neither parent shall prevent or interfere
with the timely
processing of any insurance reimbursement claim and
(3) if the parent
receiving an insurance
reimbursement payment is not the
parent or custodian
who is paying the
bill for the services of the
medical provider, the parent
receiving such insurance reimbursement payment
shall promptly pay to the parent
or custodian paying such bill any insurance reimbursement for
such services. For purposes of subdivision (1), the custodial parent or
custodian is responsible for
providing the insurer with a certified copy of the order of
dissolution or other order requiring maintenance of insurance for a
minor child. Such insurer may thereafter rely on such order and is not
responsible for inquiring as to
the legal sufficiency
of the order. The custodial
parent or custodian shall be responsible for providing the insurer with a
certified copy of any order which materially alters the provision of the
original order with respect to the maintenance of insurance for a minor child. If presented with an insurance
reimbursement claim signed
by the custodial parent or custodian, such insurer shall
reimburse the provider of the medical services, if payment is
to be made to such provider under the policy, or shall otherwise
reimburse the custodial parent or custodian.

[(d)] (e) After
the granting of a
decree annulling or dissolving the marriage or ordering a legal separation,
and upon complaint or motion with order and summons
made to the superior court by either
parent or by
the commissioner of administrative services in any case
arising under subsection (a)
OR (b) of this section, the court shall inquire into the child's need of
maintenance and the respective
abilities of the parents to
supply maintenance. The
court shall make
and enforce the decree
for the maintenance of the child as
it considers just,
and may direct security to be given therefor, including an order to either party to
contract with a third party for periodic payments or payments contingent on a
life to the other party. The court may
order either parent to
name any child
under eighteen as a beneficiary
of any medical or dental insurance or
benefit plan carried by such parent or available to such parent on
a group basis
through an employer or a union.

[(e)] (f)
Whenever an obligor is before
the court in proceedings to establish,
modify or enforce a
support order, and such order is not secured by a
wage garnishment, the
court may require the
obligor to execute
a bond or post other security sufficient to perform such order for
support, provided the court finds that such a bond is
available for purchase
within the financial means
of the obligor. Upon failure of
such obligor to comply with such support
order, the court may
order the bond
or the security forfeited and the proceeds thereof paid to
the state in AFDC cases or to
the obligee in non-AFDC cases.

Sec. 2.
This act shall take effect July 1, 1994.

JUD COMMITTEE VOTE: YEA 26
NAY 5 JFS

* * * * *

"THE
FOLLOWING FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND BILL ANALYSIS ARE PREPARED FOR THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF INFORMATION, SUMMARIZATION AND
EXPLANATION AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE

INTENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR EITHER HOUSE THEREOF FOR
ANY PURPOSE."

REP. TULISANO (29th): Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of
the Joint Committee’s favorable report and passage of the bill.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th) : The motion is on acceptance
and passage. Will you remark?

REP. TULISANO (29th): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the
bill before us represents a major change in some of the ways we deal with child
support in this state and says that the court has the power to order child
support until a child reaches the age of —— right now, it is only until the age
of 18. This would include completing 12th grade or attains the age of 19, whichever
first occurs.

REP. TULISANO (29th): Mr. Speaker, this amendment goes
through the rest of the statute where it had minor and you could apply for this
post -- a minor is someone under 18. Of course, the file copy deals with post
majority support and attempts to find those places where minor is in the
statutes and omits them and I believe is technical in nature. I move its
adoption.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): The motion is on adoption of
the amendment. Will you remark, sir? Representative Radcliffe.

REP. RADCLIFFE (123rd): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and it
certainly is a pleasure to see you there, sir.

If I may. Just one question, through
you, for the purpose of
legislative intent, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): Yes, sir.

3064

REP. RADCLIFFE (123rd): Through you to the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. By eliminating the word “minor” because it is going over
18, are we, by implications, saying that an individual perhapsunder 21 years of age who is not
residing in the home of a parent might not qualify for child support? Through
you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TULISANO (29th): Through you, Mr. Speaker, what we
are talking about now —— the intent clearly is that this language of taking out
“minor” is to allow all of those sections to apply to exactly the status that
is inthe file copy, that is
that child between 18 and 19 or still in school whichever is attained first. So
this is in limitation to that post—majority period which is now the exception
to the general rule which is in the file copy.

REP. RADCLIFFE (123rd): Through you, Mr. Speaker. Then I
take it it is not the intention of this amendment to allow for child support to
be ordered by a judge of the Superior Court in any instance where a child is
18, 19, 20 years old that is not covered by this particular bill? Through you,
Mr. Speaker.

REP. WOLLENBERG (21st): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.
Speaker, to follow up on that and I understand what Representative Tulisano is
trying to do here, but I am looking forward to a judge looking at this and
reading “minor” out of here and it seems to me if you read “minor” out of here,
it has exactly the affectthat
Representative Radcliffe was talking about. Is that it was anyone who has not
reached majority and therefore, we are doing more, I think. Through you, Mr.
Speaker.

REP. TULISANO (29th): Mr. Speaker, permission to respond.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE(25th): Yes.

REP. TULISANO (29th): That was a question, I believe.

REP. WOLLENBERG (21st): Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes.

3066

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): Proceed, sir.

REP. TULISANO (29th): Mr. Speaker, when I first read it
quickly again, I thought that we might have done what Mr. Wollenberg says and for
legislative intent, I think I will clarify that. But at this point, Mr. Speaker, we could do a better
clarification it seems to me and we might better do that on the technical
amendments bill which clarifies this. And at this point, I would withdraw this
amendment, with the anticipation of clarifying it and clearing it up in the
other bill because it would be appropriate there.

REP. WOLLENBERG (21st): Thank you, Representative Tulisano
and Mr. Speaker. I think we should clear it up. It is not what we intend. It is
what we say and I think we said something we didn’t intend to.

Mr. Speaker, just on the bill, so
that I have long been an adversary of doing anything about the age of majority in
these instances. In a domestic matter where there is an agreement, I think most
lawyers who represent someone with a child in this capacity should not go away
from the bargaining table unless that child were taken care of within the
agreement.

3067

Evidently, I am hearing that that
does not happen these days. That they are not working it into the agreement and
therefore, the need is felt and we must do this by statute.

I want to say that this bill
started out with something like you have to pay after the divorce, you have to
pay for a child through college. So, that I object to. This is has been brought
down to just this 19 year old finishing his senior year, which reluctantly, I
buy because I guess lawyers haven’t been doing their job and doing the agreements
as they should have done them. But I think, for the future, this is as far as
we should go on this. This is enough. If we want to change the age of majority
to 21, let’s do it. But let’s not tinker with this like we are doing now.

An individual who is married does
not have to pay for the –

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): Representative Wollenberg,
would you excuse me a minute, please? I believe Representative Tulisano wanted
to withdraw the amendment. Is there objection to withdrawal of the amendment?
Is there objection? Hearing none, the amendment is withdrawn. You may
continue, please.

3068

REP. WOLLENBERG (21st): On the bill, if you please, Mr.
Speaker. Thank you for getting me on the right track.

In any event, if someone were
married, they would not have to pay for this individual we are talking about
today. They would not have to pay for a college education for an individual who
had reached 18 years of age. If there is a divorce, we change the rules. I
think it is wrong. But I just look forward to the future because I am afraid,
like so many things, this is the head of the camel in the tent. We get 19 this
year and 21 the next. Not if I have anything to say about it, ladies and
gentlemen.

This bill is something we probably
do need. I have been convinced and reluctantly, I will vote forit. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): Will you remark further on
the bill? On the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of
the House? I am sorry. Representative Graziani.

REP. GARCIA
(138th): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): I am sorry. Representative
Garcia.

3069

REP. GARCIA (138th): A question to the proponent of the
bill?

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): Proceed.

REP. GARCIA (138th): Through you, Mr. speaker,
Representative Tulisano, if I had a child who was mentally retarded and
therefore he became of age according to your bill, but he requires life long
1earning or life long schooling, does that mean that through this bill I would
be able to receive child support because I have a mentally retarded son who
requires schoo1ing for the rest of his life?

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE! (25th): Representative Tulisano.

REP. TULISANO(29th): Through you, Mr. Speaker. The answer
to that would be no.

REP. GARCIA (138th): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): Thank you, Representative
Garcia. Thank you, Representative Tu1isano. Will you remark further? Will you
remark further? Will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? The
machine will be

3070

opened.

CLERK: The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call. Members please report to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is
voting by roll call. Members to the chamber, please.

ACTING SPEAKER JOYCE (25th): The Clerk will please take
the tally. Clerk, please announce the tally.

CLERK: House Bill 5618

Total Number Voting.................................................................... 146

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. The Chair would
recognize Senator Jepsen.

SENATOR JEPSEN:
Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s
Favorable Report and adoption of the bill in concurrence with the House.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator. Do you wish to
remark further?

1805

SENATOR JEPSEN: Yes, I would. This is a common sense bill
and I think it’s a good bill to encourage kids to finish school. What it says
that while under normal circumstances, the obligation to continue child support
terminates when the child reaches the age of 18, that if a child is under the
age of 19 and is a full-time high school student and is living at the home of
one of the two parents that up until that child eithergraduates from high school or quits school or turns 19, that the
obligations for child support continue until that date.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator. Would anybody
elsewish to remark? Senator Upson.

SENATOR UPSON: Yes, just further, the child has to be
unmarried. I don’t believe you said that. And the reason we hadsome nay votes in Judiciary, because
they felt that lawyers should actually-- thank you for listening--actually
negotiate this in advance, and quite frankly, that’s not the case when a
divorce, certain a pro sedivorce.

I do think-- I agree with Senator
Jepsen, it is a positive thing so that children can remain at home and

1806

have their parents responsible
even if they’re divorced and even if they’re 19 when they complete high school.
So it is very specific and there is no question as to the intent and it shall
not take effectuntil July 1, 1994, and for those divorces and disso1utions
which go into effect after that date. It’s not a question.

Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Senator Cook.

SENATOR COOK: Through you, a question to the proponent.
Senator Jepsen, as I understand it, the purpose of this is to provide child
support for children until they finish school. What about special needs
children that finish school at age 21? Is there a provision for child support
for those children?

SENATOR JEPSEN: No.

SENATOR COOK: Perhaps we can work on that another time?

SENATOR JEPSEN: I’d be happy to, on that issue.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Would anybody else wish to
remark on Senate Calendar 398? Are there any
further

1807

remarks? If not, Senator Jepsen,
would you like to make a motion to place this on the Consent Calendar?

SENATOR JEPSEN: I would so move.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Is there any objection
to placing Senate Calendar 398, Substitute for House Bill No. 5618, on the
Consent Calendar? Is there any objection? Any objection? Hearing none, so ordered.

Senate Vote

Vote for HB-5618 Sequence Number 284

The following is
the result of the vote at 11:29 p.m.:

Total Number Voting.................................. 36

Necessary for Adoption............................ 19

Those voting Yea...................................... 36

Those voting Nay........................................ 0

Those absent and not voting.................... 0

The following is the roll call vote:

Y 1
WILLIAM A. DIBELLA Y
19 KENNETH L. PRZYBYSZ

Y
2 THIRMAN L. MILNER Y 20
MELODIE PETERS

Y
3 JOHN B. LARSON Y 21
GEORGE L. GUNTHER

Y 4 MICHAEL P. MEOTTI Y 22
ANGELINA LEE SCARPETTI

Y 5 KEVIN B. SULLIVAN Y 23
ALVIN W. PENN

Y 6 JOSEPH H. HARPER, JR. Y 24
JAMES H. MALONEY

Y 7 JOHN A. KISSEL Y 25
ROBERT L. GENUARIO

Y 8 JAMES T. FLEMING Y 26 JUDITH
G. FREEDMAN

Y 9 RICHARD J. BALDUCCI Y 27
GEORGE C. JEPSEN

Y 10 TONI N. HARP Y 28
FRED H. LOVEGROVE, JR.

Y 11 MARTIN M. LOONEY Y 29
DONALD E. WILLIAMS, JR.

Y 12 WILLIAM A. ANISKOVICH Y
30
M. ADELA EADS

Y 13 AMELIA P. MUSTONE Y 31
THOMAS A. COLAPIETRO

Y 14 WINTHROP SMITH, JR. Y 32
LOUIS C. DELUCA

Y 15 THOMAS F. UPSON Y 33
EILEEN M. DAILY

Y 16 STEPHEN R. SOMMA Y 34
PHILIP S. ROBERTSON

Y 17 JOSEPH J. CRISCO, JR. Y 35
ANTHONY GUGLIELMO

Y 18 CATHERINE W. COOK Y 36
WILLIAM H. NICKERSON

SUMMARY

PA 94.61—sHB

5618 Judiciary Committee

AN ACT CONCERNING POST MAJORITY

CHILD SUPPORT

SUMMARY: Parents
who are divorced, legally sepa­rated, or have had their marriage annulled are
required to support their children, according to their ability to do so, until thc
child turns 18 (the age of majority). This act requires such parents to
continue, in some cases, to support their children until they turn 19 or
complete high school, whichever occurs first. This obligation applies only as
long as the child remains unmarried, attends high school full time, needs the
support, and lives with one of the parents. And it applies only to parents
whose dissolution, annulment, or separation is entered by the court after June
30,1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
July 1, 1994

BACKGROUND

Related Act

PA 94-1, May 25 Special Session, makes several
technical changes to the child support law to reflect the new requirement in
this act.